A THAAD still could potentially be used for offense even though they don’t use any warheads.
A better argument could be early warning systems, or even their space division where they may have NASA or ESA contracts. Products closer to scientific research, like the Osiris, crew capsules, or the lunar rover they are supposedly teamed up with GM to design.
That’s a harder question to answer and depends more on your own moral compass. Do you believe that having better defensive capabilities empowers the users of your creation to feel safe enough to do evil things? I certainly don’t think you could absolve the makers of anti-missile systems who supply militaries that are committing genocide.
How far down that chain do you want to go? A toolmaker who’s wears are used to build tanks? The US interstate system was originally a military project, are those construction workers complacent?
I try to stay practical about it. A screwdriver manufacturer is not an arms dealer. But if your work only has value in the violent world of war, then I think it’s worth asking yourself if you’re comfortable with that. I don’t always disparage people that are, even though I certainly couldn’t stomach it.
My rule of thumb is to ask whether the defense industry is the only customer for the product. The company I work for does sell some to defense, but the products were not designed with defense as the primary purpose. It still doesn’t feel great to me, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to avoid defense funding nowadays.
Doesn’t make you any less responsible when the fruits of your labor are used to murder civilians.
What if I have only ever worked constructively on anti-missile defense systems?
A THAAD still could potentially be used for offense even though they don’t use any warheads.
A better argument could be early warning systems, or even their space division where they may have NASA or ESA contracts. Products closer to scientific research, like the Osiris, crew capsules, or the lunar rover they are supposedly teamed up with GM to design.
That’s a harder question to answer and depends more on your own moral compass. Do you believe that having better defensive capabilities empowers the users of your creation to feel safe enough to do evil things? I certainly don’t think you could absolve the makers of anti-missile systems who supply militaries that are committing genocide.
How far down that chain do you want to go? A toolmaker who’s wears are used to build tanks? The US interstate system was originally a military project, are those construction workers complacent?
I try to stay practical about it. A screwdriver manufacturer is not an arms dealer. But if your work only has value in the violent world of war, then I think it’s worth asking yourself if you’re comfortable with that. I don’t always disparage people that are, even though I certainly couldn’t stomach it.
My rule of thumb is to ask whether the defense industry is the only customer for the product. The company I work for does sell some to defense, but the products were not designed with defense as the primary purpose. It still doesn’t feel great to me, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to avoid defense funding nowadays.
Such as if Trump would start to send anti-missile systems to Russia.